The more the merrier so three or more suppliers would be my first options. I did go for spec Pirellis as my least favoured option, but that kind of depends on who the 'spec other' would be. Maybe it's a case of better the devil you know, as while I imagine Bridgestone/Michelin would have more integrity as far as building a good tyre rather than an "entertaining" one, if they went for a lesser known supplier looking to make a name for themselves, or worse, a BE-controlled unbranded tyre that was mooted a while back, they could go even more crazy searching for false "entertainment".

It almost goes without saying that what will actually happen will be spec Pirellis. Or spec something anyway

The more the merrier so three or more suppliers would be my first options. I did go for spec Pirellis as my least favoured option, but that kind of depends on who the 'spec other' would be. Maybe it's a case of better the devil you know, as while I imagine Bridgestone/Michelin would have more integrity as far as building a good tyre rather than an "entertaining" one, if they went for a lesser known supplier looking to make a name for themselves, or worse, a BE-controlled unbranded tyre that was mooted a while back, they could go even more crazy searching for false "entertainment".

It almost goes without saying that what will actually happen will be spec Pirellis. Or spec something anyway

That is complete rubbish. Pirelli have built a tyre to the spec that the customer ordered, they have no less integrity than any other manufacturer and could just as easily have built an everlasting tyre.

I want tye war, I don't get why there is a war between engines, fuel, aero and many other things and we have only one tyre supplier, and the same goes for the ECU.

We have a spec ECU to help prevent cheating. We have one tyre supplier because of the massive potential difference between tyre suppliers. Imagine if McLaren and Ferrari were on the pirellis we started last season with, and Red Bull had the ones at the end. There wouldn't of even been the appearance of a title fight.

We have a spec ECU to help prevent cheating. We have one tyre supplier because of the massive potential difference between tyre suppliers. Imagine if McLaren and Ferrari were on the pirellis we started last season with, and Red Bull had the ones at the end. There wouldn't of even been the appearance of a title fight.

F1 is about having the best package. Why not allow different manufacturers, but have minimum and maximum standards???

That is complete rubbish. Pirelli have built a tyre to the spec that the customer ordered, they have no less integrity than any other manufacturer and could just as easily have built an everlasting tyre.

Even if I went strong on the wording, and even if they didn't initiate the idea, they were still complicit in implementing it. If other manufacturers would be willing to manipulate their tyres' construction in the same way (as opposed to giving Bernie/FIA/FOTA the finger and walking away), I'd be happy to bracket them all together.

F1 is about having the best package. Why not allow different manufacturers, but have minimum and maximum standards???

Because the tyres are completely out of the teams hands, have a much larger effect on performance and can have potentially disastrous results if they get it wrong. You don't need me to remind you of Indy 05.

What I’d really, REALLY want to see… At least 3 tyre manufacturers get the deal to supply tyres for F1. All research and development for 2014 tyres ends December 31, 2013, when manufactures give FIA their examples of wet, intermediate and slick tyres. Slick tyres must be able to last the race distance. All tyres supplied in 2014 must in every detail match examples given to FIA. Before the beginning of the season all teams have two at least 3-days testing seasons, one in dry, one in wet conditions to try out the tyres.

There are no lasting deals between teams and tyre manufactures. During the race teams have the right to change (for example) Hankook wets to Pirelli intermediates to Goodyear slicks, also, if they so want, Goodyear slicks to Kumho slicks. Bernie pays tyre manufacturers proportionally to their tyres used by teams.

Even if I went strong on the wording, and even if they didn't initiate the idea, they were still complicit in implementing it. If other manufacturers would be willing to manipulate their tyres' construction in the same way (as opposed to giving Bernie/FIA/FOTA the finger and walking away), I'd be happy to bracket them all together.

This is complete rubbish. They are a supplier and they were required to manufacture a tyre to a specification supplied by the governing body. If other manufacturers were not willing to meet that specification then that would be one of the reasons they didn't get the contract.

Because the tyres are completely out of the teams hands, have a much larger effect on performance and can have potentially disastrous results if they get it wrong. You don't need me to remind you of Indy 05.

How is that different from say engine specs? Indy 05 is an anomaly not the norm. I think they should have some regulation and let the manufacturers have at it just like everything else. Some people will have lighter tires or tires that warm up quicker or what have you. Right now we have a full on aero war, I'm just looking to open that up. Uncork the engines and tires a bit and see what happens.

I think both spec tyres and tyre wars have their merits and disadvantages, and it's a tough call overall. Think in the spirit of competition I'd rather have a tyre war but I see why people don't like it (very big chunk of performance out of the teams hands), and the Pirellis have helped create great racing. I think I'm fine with almost whatever happens really.

This is complete rubbish. They are a supplier and they were required to manufacture a tyre to a specification supplied by the governing body. If other manufacturers were not willing to meet that specification then that would be one of the reasons they didn't get the contract.

I don't they were actually given any specification in black and white.

Although I really disliked the way last year started (7 races, 7 winners) I cannot fault Pirelli for adhering to the demand of more entertaining race tyres. However, I would best prefer if the 2011-spec Pirelli came back where there was lots of variation between the types of tyres but not necessarily at random so the teams can still manage to cope with them.

I hope the tyre war doesn't come back as I dislike multiple components being out of the team's control. As it is, the engine supplier is tagged along to the main team already (i.e. McLaren Mercedes). So the lesser teams have to resort to Cosworth engines which take away from their performance. To have the tyre manufacturers adding one more variable just makes it even less quantifiable, and makes the WCC title less about the team making the car, and more about the richest team who can buy the best suppliers. Maybe we should have WDC, WCC, WE(ngine)C and WT(yre)C?

And I think far too many people criticize Pirelli without understanding the brief they were given by the FIA when entering the sport. They were told to make the tyres wear down such that 2-3 pit stops were a necessity. To then turn around and say their tyres are not up to standard just because of the wear is ignorant. However, I do agree they do not get things right all the time, but still some leeway ought to be given with regards to tyre wear. Please remember that Bridgestones used to throw up boring races ala 2010 (especially without refuelling) and it may be part of the reason why the company left the sport in the first place (because they were unwilling or unable to comply to 2-3 pit stop tyres). I remember back at the start of 2011 when someone from Pirelli (most likely Hembrey) mentioned it was far simpler to make a durable tyre than to make tyres compliant with the F1 brief.

So with Pirelli confirmed as the continuing spec supplier and after witnessing yet another year of... something, have the opinions changed here? Note: the third poll is useless now so don't pay attention to it

Again, in my personal opinion the spec formula is one of the biggest fundamental issues with the series that is (again IMO mistakenly) claiming to be the king of the mountain.

So with Pirelli confirmed as the continuing spec supplier and after witnessing yet another year of... something, have the opinions changed here? Note: the third poll is useless now so don't pay attention to it

Again, in my personal opinion the spec formula is one of the biggest fundamental issues with the series that is (again IMO mistakenly) claiming to be the king of the mountain.

I'd prefer a tyre war, but I don't have fundamental issues with the spec tyre either. What I do have a problem with is teams having to drive to a delta and being unable to push and race on said tyres.

2014 is going to see cars with a lot more torque and I can already foresee all kinds of issues with rear tyres being shredded and possible delaminations, rather than some straight up racing. Even if the racing is processional it shouldn't be because of the tyres.

I want tye war, I don't get why there is a war between engines, fuel, aero and many other things and we have only one tyre supplier, and the same goes for the ECU.

Engine is pretty much spec. Have you seen the 2014 technical rules on engines? The only thing free is the sticker on the engine cover.

Fuel is also confined to road spec fuel.

Aero is only in certain boxes, most notable the front wing and the winglets/fins on the sidepod near the mirrors.

We also have 1 cockpit supplier, bar RB, everyone has the same layout with the same LED's.

I liked the Goodyear era. You have soft - medium - hard at every GP and you could use any of your liking. This was to ban special Q tires. I don't remember how many sets of each they had. Let teams decide which tire to use where. So perhaps the left front is medium, right front is soft and the rears are hard.

Also wet tires that actually worked. Much more strategic options than the two compounds now.

I'd prefer a tyre war, but I don't have fundamental issues with the spec tyre either. What I do have a problem with is teams having to drive to a delta and being unable to push and race on said tyres.

With multiple tire manufacturers you cannot have this situation due to there actually being competition between marks... you won't have two suppliers producing crap tires on purpose, or even one as that would make your brand look stupid. You cannot change the formula from race to race either if you want to stay on par. In spec formula the supplier can do whatever it pleases as it doesn't really matter what they bring, "show tires" or ultra durable bricks

With multiple tire manufacturers you cannot have this situation due to there actually being competition between marks... you won't have two suppliers producing crap tires on purpose, or even one as that would make your brand look stupid. You cannot change the formula from race to race either if you want to stay on par. In spec formula the supplier can do whatever it pleases as it doesn't really matter what they bring, "show tires" or ultra durable bricks

Tyres play too big of a role. I want to see a battle between F1 teams, not a battle between tyre manufacturers. It was a disaster in MotoGp, it was a disaster in F1 and it will be a disaster again if we go back to that.

Tyres play too big of a role. I want to see a battle between F1 teams, not a battle between tyre manufacturers. It was a disaster in MotoGp, it was a disaster in F1 and it will be a disaster again if we go back to that.

If one tyre manufacturer dominates, the other(s) just have to up their game. In a world of modern day F1 where 90% of the cars (which aren't even pretty to look at) are spec components you need to have at least some variety.

If you have the best tire brand behind you, then fine congrats for you. Some might see them as external part of the car but they're not any more than things like customer chassises and engines

And tires play big part in tyre war but even bigger in spec formula, there is no denying it let's face it. Especially when the sole supplier is given so much power

Yeah but we are supposed to be watching an engineering battle between the teams(and engine manufacturers but they are often if not the team part of it) and the tyres are a HUGE part that is NOT being developed by the teams.

If the teams themselves each built their own tyres at least that would make sense on some level.

OR, if spec of the tyre was close enough where you could be confident there would only be minor differences with mostly positive effect for most teams (due to more customisation etc).

However, I have seen it go wrong too many times. There was one season in MotoGP a few years ago where, depending on the track, half the freaking teams would essentially by uncompetitive due to being on the "wrong" tyre that week for that track.

I'd prefer a tyre war, but I don't have fundamental issues with the spec tyre either. What I do have a problem with is teams having to drive to a delta and being unable to push and race on said tyres.

2014 is going to see cars with a lot more torque and I can already foresee all kinds of issues with rear tyres being shredded and possible delaminations, rather than some straight up racing. Even if the racing is processional it shouldn't be because of the tyres.

A tyre war would be utterly awful as I'd already said at the top. But what I was going to say to you is that Pirelli are meant to be building stronger tyres aimed at one-stop races next year.

I liked the Goodyear era. You have soft - medium - hard at every GP and you could use any of your liking. This was to ban special Q tires. I don't remember how many sets of each they had. Let teams decide which tire to use where. So perhaps the left front is medium, right front is soft and the rears are hard.

I've come round to supplying the current allocation of tyres each race and simply letting the teams use them as they wish. The only rule I'd keep in place would be the one handing back tyres after Friday practice, as the spectators at the track deserve to see some action rather than empty track, especially considering how much you have to pay nowadays.

Actually, I've just remembered the idea Pirelli had in supplying extra tyres to reward teams for running rookie drivers. Why that was never adopted is beyond me. It was a fantastic idea to not only encourage teams to give young drivers seat time, but also to guarantee there will be more for the fans to see. Force India and Caterham are (mainly) the only ones that have been giving young drivers track time, they and anyone else who wants to deserve to be rewarded by allowing the rookies a separate set of tyres.

Yeah but we are supposed to be watching an engineering battle between the teams(and engine manufacturers but they are often if not the team part of it) and the tyres are a HUGE part that is NOT being developed by the teams.

If the teams themselves each built their own tyres at least that would make sense on some level.

OR, if spec of the tyre was close enough where you could be confident there would only be minor differences with mostly positive effect for most teams (due to more customisation etc).

However, I have seen it go wrong too many times. There was one season in MotoGP a few years ago where, depending on the track, half the freaking teams would essentially by uncompetitive due to being on the "wrong" tyre that week for that track.

I don't see any problem with that. And it's better than one supplier dictating the pace of the race

We have different approaches to this as I mainly follow sportscar racing which is a form of sport where most of the teams ie non-works entries are running customer cars and customer engines (the tire formula is usually open too btw) meaning that there are many external components in the overall package

Just look at Team Falken in GTE. Not my favourite class really due to many reasons but Falken Porsche has had SUPERIOR tyres on wet weather and street circuits compared to their competition which has been running mainly on Michelins and Dunlops - now that is awesome

Tyres play too big of a role. I want to see a battle between F1 teams, not a battle between tyre manufacturers. It was a disaster in MotoGp, it was a disaster in F1 and it will be a disaster again if we go back to that.

To me the tyre is no different to the engine or car, part of the package. Already we have the car having a say in who wins (I think Vettel is better than a few give him credit for, but he probably doesn't win 8 on the bounce if everyone is driving the same car), next year we'll (hopefully in my opinion) see the engines playing a bigger role.

Maybe it would have been more "fair" to see Schumacher and Ferrari win more races and an extra championship or two, but I liked what Michelin brought in the early 2000s allowing Williams, McLaren and Renault a crack at victory at races where they did a better job than Bridgestone.

And the situation never got as bad as having two separate championships with no or little overlap between the two manufacturers. The closest we got was in 2005 when aside from Ferrari it was all Michelin followed by the two BS teams, but Jordan and Minardi would likely have come 9th & 10th whatever rubber they were running.

Just look at Team Falken in GTE. Not my favourite class really due to many reasons but Falken Porsche has had SUPERIOR tyres on wet weather and street circuits compared to their competition which has been running mainly on Michelins and Dunlops - now that is awesome

See this and note how the Falken tires go on rails compared to other tyre makes - you just cannot have something awesome like this in spec formula

The only rules I don't really like are the start the race on the tyres you qualified on and use both compounds.

Amen to this. Particularly the two-compound rule. That is so stupid. As for starting the race on the tyres one qualified, I don't have a problem with the same type of types as much, I just don't like using the same set of tyres.

Also, I don't like the fact that those who qualify to Q3 lose a set of fresh tyres to those who didn't and also the disparity of Q3 qualifiers having to start on the tyres they set their times while Q1 and Q2 qualifiers can start on other compounds/tyres. The latter holding up the top 5 after the top 5 pit is plain artificial.

As for next year, I think Pirelli is going to produce rock-hard tyres, the kind of tyres where you could go till the penultimate lap on the softer compound. They are going to play it ultra-conservative given the uncertainty over the effect of the new engines and the criticism they received earlier this year.

Tyre wars are something I could never understand in F1. F1 is about the car design, tyres should have no role of design, they should be the same for everyone. This is because tyres have the power to overshadow cars in performance. I would go out on a limb and say that tyre wars would not happen in F1 for a long time from now.

I‘m opposed neither to tyres that have to be nursed through a 15 lap stint nor to tyres that last the whole race no matter how hard you drive them. What we can‘t have is tyres that can‘t handle the loads and blow out. And if we have tyres that don‘t need to be nursed through a stint, then we must have some other way of encouraging people to run varied strategies and thus have cars running at different speeds at different stages of the race, otherwise things would very quickly become very processional again.

In the long term and on principle I prefer open tyre regs and no mandatory tyre changes, with teams procuring tyres from anybody they please. But the question was about 2014 and I favour spec tyres because, if we had open regs and competition, the tyres would last the whole race, and we don‘t have any other way of avoiding processional races. No amount of DRS is going to produce overtaking if the quickest car is in P1, second quickest in P2 down to the slowest man in P24.

One thought I've had regarding the lack of variety in strategies. I got into F1 as a child in the years just prior to refuelling being introduced (1991-3), and there'd often be a healthy mix of tyre strategy - nurse tyres all race, make one stop, go like hell and make 2 or 3, of course with the choice of the entire range from hardest to softest available at every race.

I still believe the insistence of bringing only two types - one of which tends to be heavily unfavoured - and running both in the race - definitely doesn't help, as it generally means teams tend to be straightjacketed into basically one strategy, or two (that are essentially mirror images of each other).

But I think the factor in making teams want to stop as little as possible compared to the last time we had no refuelling is the pit lane speed limit (introduced in 1994), which means the time gained from running a softer, faster tyre is no longer enough to make up for the time lost in the pits. Even in the first 1994 races (with no limit) I remember stopping 3 times generally being the way to go, then over time you tended just to get one or two stops (with the odd exception) as I guess teams figured out the benefit of the lighter car/fresher tyres wasn't enough to overcome the additional time now lost in the pits.

It's hard to see a solution mind you - getting rid of the speed limit is a big no-no for obvious reasons, and the only other way I can see is reconfiguring circuits so that the pit entry and/or exit shortcut a significant portion of the track meaning going through the pit lane on the limiter doesn't lose you that much time, and that wouldn't be a simple task, and impossible at certain tracks (like Spa where the Bus Stop aside there's just one long run to the start/finish area)

But all that aside I'd rather see a race with no stops at all than any be made mandatory or have them induced by under-engineered tyres, (even my own suggestion of pitlane shortcuts would be pushing it) let them sort it out on the actual race track. Speaking of which, I do find it strange that throughout the refuelling era F1 was generally derided for being "like a chess match" with everything decided in the pits, but now the same public opinion seems to want more pitstops, more pitstops, more pitstops.